New user-created NFL Draft Trade Value Chart

by David Fucillo on Feb 27, 2010 5:46 PM PST in NFL Draft

One of the more controversial random aspects of the NFL Draft is the trade value chart that floats around. For every source there are often subtle differences (see Draft Countdown versus ESPN). However, in general there is a consensus on these picks.

Well, I wanted to point you to a new draft chart someone created over at Big Cat Country, that contains some fairly big revisions. Why would someone take the time to re-do the draft chart? As SoCalStites stated:

With changes in the NFL over the last few years, specifically in the rookie salaries and depth of rookie classes, this generic chart has become outdated.
...

In fact, according to the old chart the teams trading up won their trades 7 out of the first 8 times in the draft. This obviously indicates that the higher picks have been devalued in recent years.

In order to revise the chart, he took draft day trades and adjusted the chart values to make various apparently lopsided trades look more even. The downside to basing these revisions on previous trades is that we cannot get into the heads of the GMs doing the dealing. There might be financial considerations, particularly for deals involving first round picks. A team doesn't think the necessary value is there so they don't want to give out the slotted contract value, and thus they give up the pick for less than they might normally do.

Nonetheless, we don't really see many mainstream challenges to the status quo of the trade value chart. So, even if you disagree with the revisions, at least somebody is trying to shake things up a bit. Do you agree with the revisions? If not, what do you see as potential problems with this new chart?

NEW DRAFT TRADE VALUE CHART

Tweet Comment 10 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

What puzzles me about this chart is that our two first round picks don't equal number 1 overall, hoever I think a lot of teams would take them in trade for that pick.

1-3 are the worst picks to have, unless there is a P Mannning coming in.

Tribute to #42 Ronnie Lott

by rlott#42 on Feb 27, 2010 6:13 PM PST reply actions

Well, think about it

The 1st round pick lets them take any player they want…in hopes to get a franchise player…who the fanbase likes…

The Rams could either have Suh, McCoy or a QB….a trade to 13/17 means no best player, no franchise QB (maybe Clausen falls back to them, but maybe they don’t like Clausen)….you don’t get the best DT, OT, QB, CB, FS, WR….true they need all the talent they can get, but it doesn’t seem like fair value for the #1.

by TexansDC on Feb 27, 2010 6:26 PM PST up reply actions

Look at 2001

Chargers #1 for Atlanta #5, #67 (round 3), 2nd round a year later, and Tim Dwight

And that’s just moving 5 to 1. 13 to 1 is a bigger jump.

by TexansDC on Feb 27, 2010 6:37 PM PST up reply actions

trading picks

Even in the traditional trade value chart 13 + 17 do not equal the #1 pick.

Traditional Chart: 13/17 = 1150+950 (2100); 1 = 3000

Revised Chart: 13/17 = 960 + 810 (1770); 1 = 2500

by David Fucillo on Feb 27, 2010 6:50 PM PST up reply actions

I understand it doesn't equal, by using the points system.

All I’m saying is I would rather have our picks than that one, simply because they will shell out more money in one pick than we will in two. You may not get a franchise player, but you could wind up with two. You can get a franchise player in the second round if you scout correctly.

Tribute to #42 Ronnie Lott

by rlott#42 on Feb 27, 2010 7:24 PM PST up reply actions

This is true

but when you are the worst team in the league…you kinda have to use pick one or get a king’s ransom for it.

While the extra #1 is nice, I would’ve rather had the picks we gave up for them….the 2 and 4 last season because that coulda turned into (now Patriots) 2nd round OT Sebastian Vollmer and (now Raiders WR) 4th round Louis Murphy.

by TexansDC on Feb 27, 2010 8:34 PM PST up reply actions

Definitely makes sense, considering you are the worst team in the league, but what if you have no other offers.

When the Niners had one overall, I wouldn’t have been waiting on a king’s ransom to unload that pick.

Tribute to #42 Ronnie Lott

by rlott#42 on Feb 27, 2010 8:56 PM PST up reply actions

When the 49ers had the #1 pick

There really wasn’t a great talent. They woulda been better off trading back.

The Rams at least have good talent to choose from. I think you have to take it year by year.

by TexansDC on Feb 27, 2010 9:40 PM PST up reply actions

The values on the chart aren’t broke the concept is.

by bignerd on Feb 27, 2010 8:51 PM PST reply actions

Wel put nerdy

This chart was started when the #1 didn’t have the cost hits it does now. If I’m understanding things correctly this change in the valuation, SoCal feels has evolved over time to be “invalid” due to changes in the payment of players. I have some reservations in changing over to another chart that no one can verify for 100% surety is the way that valuation is done by NFL teams. Numerous entities have stated that the “old chart” is the generally accepted “rule of thumb”. But no entity has proven that this new rule of thumb has validity. Is there some way we can gain this validity?

by ChesapeakeBay9er on Feb 28, 2010 7:25 AM PST up reply actions